Everything is permitted in atheism because there is no foundation to distinguish "right" from "wrong". there is no higher authority than oneself, and no fear of damnation, even if you can get away with all your evils on earth. Talking about the need for laws in society requires every single person to be on the same page as you, which any amount of reason inform you is never going to happen.

Everything is permitted in atheism because there is no foundation to distinguish "right" from "wrong".

If everything was permitted, atheists would want a lawless society and most of them don't. If there are laws, then there must logically be a foundation for making them. I've explained the golden rule to you so many times and yet you refuse to let go of your erroneous belief.

Everything is permitted in atheism because there is no foundation to distinguish "right" from "wrong".

If everything was permitted, atheists would want a lawless society and most of them don't. If there are laws, then there must logically be a foundation for making them. I've explained the golden rule to you so many times and yet you refuse to let go of your erroneous belief.

Yes. you can use the argument that a law doesn't permit you to do such things such as rape or murder, and under such laws everybody has a duty to abide by them. But under atheism which only recognizes the law as the highest authority, the law is not grounded in anything but the decisions of the people, and when people decide differently then the law can be changed.

Everything is permitted in atheism because there is no foundation to distinguish "right" from "wrong".

If everything was permitted, atheists would want a lawless society and most of them don't. If there are laws, then there must logically be a foundation for making them. I've explained the golden rule to you so many times and yet you refuse to let go of your erroneous belief.

Yes. you can use the argument that a law doesn't permit you to do such things such as rape or murder, and under such laws everybody has a duty to abide by them. But under atheism which only recognizes the law as the highest authority, the law is not grounded in anything but the decisions of the people, and when people decide differently then the law can be changed.

True, but if (moral) laws are grounded in the decisions of the people, it is grounded in something, so it's erroneous to say that atheistic morality "has no foundation" like andymcstab is saying.

This is the one I follow:Morals are subjective on an individual level. A person's morals are their own. They are developed primarily through empathy. Humans are social beings, so morality is not a good thing to base actions off of, so what we base actions off of are ethics and evidence. Ethics are commonly shared morals. The overwhelming majority of people find murder wrong, so people should not murder. Evidence comes in in places like racial superiority, homosexuality, etc. Evidence says all people are people, no race is better than another. Evidence points to homosexuality being natural. this means that racial superiority should not exist in societies, and that equal rights for homosexuals should exist in societies. Ethics can change, whether for the better or not is subjective, and more evidence can be found. This is why "morality" can also change.

Morality exists independent from God, which means that atheist does not permit anything, it just doesn't threaten you with ETERNAL damnation if you do something wrong.

How is that the Mcgurk effect. Becuase you are saying Atheism but I'm hearing Anarchy?

Ditto.

At 5/13/2014 2:26:21 PM, n7 wrote:lol, it was a joke everyome.

Not a very coherent one.

At 5/13/2014 2:45:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:...Humans are social beings, so morality is not a good thing to base actions off of, so what we base actions off of are ethics and evidence.

I disagree: I think morals are a good thing to base actions from.

Ethics are commonly shared morals.

Seems to me you're saying that ethics are simply popular morals. This would mean that there's a false distinction then.

The overwhelming majority of people find murder wrong, so people should not murder.

And so if the overwhelming majority of people thought murder was not wrong, then it would be ethical or moral? Naw, don't think so.

Evidence comes in in places like racial superiority, homosexuality, etc. Evidence says all people are people, no race is better than another.

Well, it depends what evidence you are referring to and what exactly it is you are measuring. I can assure you that their is plenty of evidence to suggest vast differences between the races: some good, some bad.

Evidence points to homosexuality being natural. this means that racial superiority should not exist in societies, and that equal rights for homosexuals should exist in societies.

Wow! What a very verbose non sequitor! Human homosexuality is not natural, it is a deviation from the norm. If you are referring to homosexuality in nature, this is quite different from human homosexuality. Also, many things that are alien to humanity occur in nature: eating of the young, killing and eating of a mate, etc. Racial superiority simply on the merits of race is not much of an argument and has no scientific support.

Ethics can change, whether for the better or not is subjective, and more evidence can be found. This is why "morality" can also change.

If it is subjective, then we wouldn't know if it changed for the better or worse...

Morality exists independent from God, which means that atheist does not permit anything, it just doesn't threaten you with ETERNAL damnation if you do something wrong.

Some morality CAN exist independent of God but it doesn't mean ALL morality can.

How is that the Mcgurk effect. Becuase you are saying Atheism but I'm hearing Anarchy?

Ditto.

At 5/13/2014 2:26:21 PM, n7 wrote:lol, it was a joke everyome.

Not a very coherent one.

Two different interpretations for the same thing, quite coherent.

At 5/13/2014 2:45:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:...Humans are social beings, so morality is not a good thing to base actions off of, so what we base actions off of are ethics and evidence.

I disagree: I think morals are a good thing to base actions from.

Ethics are commonly shared morals.

Seems to me you're saying that ethics are simply popular morals. This would mean that there's a false distinction then.

The overwhelming majority of people find murder wrong, so people should not murder.

And so if the overwhelming majority of people thought murder was not wrong, then it would be ethical or moral? Naw, don't think so.

Evidence comes in in places like racial superiority, homosexuality, etc. Evidence says all people are people, no race is better than another.

Well, it depends what evidence you are referring to and what exactly it is you are measuring. I can assure you that their is plenty of evidence to suggest vast differences between the races: some good, some bad.

Evidence points to homosexuality being natural. this means that racial superiority should not exist in societies, and that equal rights for homosexuals should exist in societies.

Wow! What a very verbose non sequitor! Human homosexuality is not natural, it is a deviation from the norm. If you are referring to homosexuality in nature, this is quite different from human homosexuality. Also, many things that are alien to humanity occur in nature: eating of the young, killing and eating of a mate, etc. Racial superiority simply on the merits of race is not much of an argument and has no scientific support.

Ethics can change, whether for the better or not is subjective, and more evidence can be found. This is why "morality" can also change.

If it is subjective, then we wouldn't know if it changed for the better or worse...

Morality exists independent from God, which means that atheist does not permit anything, it just doesn't threaten you with ETERNAL damnation if you do something wrong.

Some morality CAN exist independent of God but it doesn't mean ALL morality can.

How is that the Mcgurk effect. Becuase you are saying Atheism but I'm hearing Anarchy?

Ditto.

At 5/13/2014 2:26:21 PM, n7 wrote:lol, it was a joke everyome.

Not a very coherent one.

Two different interpretations for the same thing, quite coherent.

What was incoherent was how that relates to auditory illusion.

You're taking it too literal (in fact pretty much everyone is taking this thread too literal). People can use it as figure of speech to refer to something that can have two interpretations depending on your background beliefs.